Posted on 01/12/2015 4:39:50 AM PST by LeoMcNeil
Some things you do because it’s the right thing to do. This was one.
You have four million people across France demonstrating and for a change Baraq had a chance to be on the right side of history.
Naturally, he missed it.
I can understand not sending Biden. He might molest Angie Merkel in front of the cameras or otherwise do something ridiculous. Of course this assumes that Obama should send someone, which I’m not convinced is the case.
The only place I want the President of the United States to “show up” is at the American governor’s palace in Riyadh to receive tribute from the former king of Saudi Arabia, before he flies to Islamabad to visit the Indian Commander-in-Chief, Former Pakistan Region.
It’s absolutely true that Christians didn’t murder people over the faux art called “piss Christ.” Likewise when Charlie Hebdo depicted Christ in equally vile ways believers did not shoot up the newsroom or firebomb them. We prayed for them instead.
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean we have to rally around them when something bad happens because they’ve exercised a right. Charlie Hebdo had the right to depict Muhammad as they did and the Muslim terrorist attacks against the magazine are outrageous and despicable. However, we don’t need to rally around a magazine who abuses free speech and free press. My objection isn’t that they mocked Muhammad. My objection is that they did it in a vulgar way. In addition they’ve blasphemed Christ. While they have the right to do these things, I’m under no obligation to rally around them or otherwise support their vulgar exercise of rights.
Why is the American President obligated to show up in France because four million Frenchmen are demonstrating? I’ve never known an America obligated to support the French, or anyone, simply because a number of them are rallying.
What bothers me most about the demonstrations is that the French barred the opposition National Front from participating. I by no means support the National Front across the board (they are socialists after all). But it’s a little bit disingenuous for the French ruling socialists to organize a demonstration in favor of free speech and freedom generally while barring participation by what could end up being their main opposition in the next election.
He was wrong to not go or send a high level replacement—like Biden, Kerry, or even Hillary. He could have sent his wife... But NO!
My point is there is no such thing as 'abusing' free speech, with two notable exceptions: 1) Using free speech to commit financial fraud, or 2) Using free speech to incite and directly cause a riot. (the infamous "Fire" in a crowded theater example).
I’m under no obligation to rally around them or otherwise support their vulgar exercise of rights.
Then don't. No one is forcing your allegiance.
I, on the other hand, understand this to be a deeper, anti-Muslim movement. "Charlie Hebo" is an excuse. I'm rallying.
Dude. Four MILLION! The French routinely revolt. This might end up being that. Get ahead of the deal.
What bothers me most about the demonstrations is that the French barred the opposition National Front from participating.
That is a big ol' barrel of suck. If I was NF, I'd be there anyways, with poppin' big banners and everything.
The march and rally was nothing but one large selfie. That is the extent of our generation in terms of progress and development.
The march and rally does much to take away the responsibility of the French government. They continued to allow a Islamic radical to run around and develop this little plan of terror.
No wonder Hollande and Merkel were there! It was their only way of showing like they were 'doing' something.
Nothing makes a liberal feel good like a good rally or march. Pathetic.
There is no excusing the anti-Semitism involved. It reminds of a British fellow who said in response to the suffering of the Jews and some Jews righteous anger against it, You Jews are so accustomed [to being persecuted]. It has everything to do with Judenhass and it should be condemned.
If it is anti-Semitic to not note that Israel has been the victim of Muslim terrorism, is it racist not to note the black victims of Muslim terrorism in Nigeria or Sudan?
I don’t feel it’s necessary to cite every single example of Muslim terrorism in order to get a point across. I left out a lot of examples, choosing to cite largely American (9-11, Boston), recent (Sydney, Nigeria, Paris) and one major historic attack in London. I left out multiple terrorist attacks in Canada, Israel, China, Indonesia, India and throughout the middle east. This isn’t an example of racism or anti-semitism, it’s an example of a writer only having so much space to write in.
Using the right of free speech and press to say and print vulgar things is an abuse of that freedom. Pornography is an abuse of free speech. Mocking Jesus Christ by depicting him having sex with his disciples is an abuse of free speech. You may be able to print all of these things and you may be free to say equally vulgar things. I may support your right to be vulgar but I don’t need to take to the streets to support your right when a Muslim barbarian shoots up your newsroom.
By entering the streets in support of free speech in the case of Charlie Hebdo, that support shifts from a general support of free speech to a support of specific content. While I have no problem with a paper mocking the false prophet Muhammad, I do object to how Charlie Hebdo has done it.
This is why I don’t think Obama should have gone. To show up at the demonstration sends the message that he supports what Charlie Hebdo has done. Obama’s offense level on this matter is likely low, for him any mockery of Muhammad is verboten. For me and I would hope for Christians the issue isn’t the mockery of a false prophet but the vulgar manner in which it was done. In addition, Charlie Hebdo has a long history of doing the same to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, by showing up at the demonstration Obama would have signaled support for Charlie Hebdo, not simply free speech. As such, I really don’t have a problem with him not showing. Charlie Hebdo isn’t worth rallying around.
“He could have sent his wife... But NO!”
Michelle actually do something for this country other than monitor our kids school lunches? The only time she gets on a AF1 is for vacation.
I did not realize that France was part of the US. Their internal self inflicted problem does not require the presence of the president of the US to prance in a stupid dog and pony show. Until France gets rid of its immigrant populations this stuff is going to happen. Since they are too weak to get rid of that population this stuff is going to happen. And because that population is outbreeding them,the country is going to be Islamic in 30 years anyway. Where was the French president after 911? I don’t recall that he even lowered a flag. And why a march at all? These people sat in the cafes and shrugged their shoulders when thousands of Catholics were driven from Mosul or killed.
there is NO EXCUSE..... he is a lazy, commie, muslim terrorist supporter as well as a racist. he showed his support for the islamic terrorists AGAIN... the absence was his statement...
“Yes, the march means nothing, but this is a matter of optics.
Bibi was there. Sarah would have been there. That says it all.”
That’s because they are both against Islamo Tyrants in general.
Agreed. FINALLY he saved taxpayers some money.
They called it a “Unity Meeting” but they didn’t invite the person who is the favorite to win the French Presidency in 2017, Marine Le Pen.
That’s what this march was all about, these feeble leaders trying to convince people that they need not vote for the “Extreme Right” to solve their Islam problem.
Embarrassing if he goes or embarrassing if he doesn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.